Below is the text of the keynote speech delivered by Michael Beloff.
For better or worse, few passions are as widely and deeply shared around the world as the passion for sport. Its symbolism is often striking. It brings out the noblest human qualities (sportsmanlike integrity, the pursuit of excellence, a sense of community) and the basest (deception and mob aggression). It is also big international business. Its ability to motivate vast masses of people is nothing short of amazing, and naturally attracts those who want to harness this magic for their own ends. The thirst for political influence and money moves the heart in a business suit with as primal a force as the dreams of glory that fill the tunic of a long-distance runner.”[1]
Sport is, of course, an area increasingly subject to the influence of law, illustrated, among other things, by the legal competition we have witnessed in this very room, home to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the apex of the pyramid for resolving sports disputes.
During my career as a sports lawyer, in addition to being a CAS arbitrator for a quarter of a century, I have also chaired the ethics committees of three global sports: first cricket, then athletics and finally skiing.
It is this experience that defines the theme of my short speech today – the main goal of sports law is to promote competitions that are not only efficient and exciting, but, above all, fair.
Let’s start with the basics: the rules that define the content of a particular sport – the length of a match, the weight of the disc, the width of the goal – are not designed to ensure fairness in themselves. They are constantly reviewed by sporting authorities, taking into account factors such as the safety of the participants, the enjoyment of the spectators, the demands of television, and they are not subject to judicial review unless, perhaps incredibly, they are contrary to the laws of the land or to public policy (ordre public). Boxing (and perhaps mixed martial arts) may be considered an exception, but, in the words of one of the law lords in the then Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, “it is better to regard it as another special situation which for the time being falls outside the ordinary law of violence because society chooses to tolerate it.”[2]
In the next stage of organizing competitions, concepts of fairness play an important role.
In particular, sport for people with disabilities has its own special regime, since the physically able person has a natural advantage over the disabled person. It also distinguishes between different categories of physical or mental impairments, again to ensure, as far as possible, fair competition between the like.
Sometimes a disabled athlete seeks to compete with able-bodied athletes, most famously the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius, the "Blade Runner". The question before the International Association of Athletics Federations was whether his prosthetic limbs gave him an unfair competitive advantage. The CAS panel ruled that the federation had to prove its case, but it failed to do so on the basis of the evidence available.[3]
Most sports, in an effort to achieve the same goal of fairness, have competitions for different age groups. Many sports recognize the need to differentiate between weight classes, such as boxing, which has several different categories, or rowing, which has only two – lightweight and heavyweight.
These distinctions are based on science, particularly biology, and are rarely controversial. Nor is there any debate about the most important dividing line in athletic competition—between men and women, which is embedded in almost all sports except, notably, equestrian sports, where the horse eliminates the influence of human differences.
But while disputes over whether a competitor is in a certain age category can be resolved by an authentic birth certificate, or weight category by accurate scales, the question of whether someone is a woman for sporting purposes is a hotly debated issue, particularly in the US, where it has a political dimension. President Trump would ban all transgender women from competitive sports. His position on women with differences in sexual development (DSD), such as Caster Semenya, whose case for unlawful discrimination is still pending before the European Court of Human Rights, is unclear.
Meanwhile, Sebastian Coe, the president of World Athletics, after losing his bid for the same position at the IOC, has redoubled efforts to protect the integrity of women's sport by introducing mandatory DNA sex testing using cheek swabs and dried blood tests for athletes competing in women's events.[4] While the new rules are intended to ensure fair competition, they have already drawn criticism from human rights groups and are likely to face legal challenges.
At the third stage, there is almost unanimous agreement, apart from proponents of so-called “enhanced games,” that the results of sporting events, regardless of their structure, should depend on a combination of skill, effort, tactics, playing conditions, and even luck—although, as the famous South African golfer Gary Player said, “The more I practice, the luckier I get.” They should not depend on any form of cheating; in other words, they should be fair.
Forms of fraud specific to sports are diverse:
selection of unsuitable individuals for the team;
claims of non-existent or less severe disabilities to improve classification in Paralympic sports;
Violation of engine design rules in motorsports or ball tampering in cricket.
The most obvious example of cheating in sports is the use of doping, which has been monitored since the turn of the century by the World Anti-Doping Agency. In the foreword to Good Sport, Tom Murray writes convincingly: “Doping undermines what gives sport its value and meaning… Performance-enhancing drugs distort the connection between natural talent, commitment to improvement, and sporting success.”
Another significant example of cheating is match-fixing or point-fixing, where participants distort results through actions or inaction, usually to facilitate betting. Match officials have also been involved in such essentially corrupt practices.
More trivial, even unlikely examples were mentioned in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom:
“A runner who puts his foot down on one of his rivals;
A stable boy who waters the favorite the day before a race and then gives him two buckets of water before the race itself to make him run slower than usual;
Intentional time delay in many types of games.”[5]
All sports, in an effort to achieve as much equality of opportunity as possible between athletes, should have rules regarding what clothing and equipment may be used.
The line between what legally enhances performance is constantly shifting. Since early 2010, swimmers have been banned from wearing the polyurethane and neoprene one-piece suits that helped Michael Phelps win medals at the Beijing Olympics—though it’s comforting to know that the ban didn’t stop him from winning more medals in London and Rio.
But now World Athletics has been forced to introduce rules regarding the permissible components of so-called super-sneakers.
Fair competition must be guaranteed not only in individual but also in team sports.
In the ENIC case, the CAS panel ruled that when one person owns two teams in the same competition, there is an unacceptable risk of manipulation of results in the commercial interests of the owner.[6]
In the FC Seraing case, the CAS panel prohibited third-party ownership of football players when persons other than the player's club have a so-called economic interest in him, ruling that it also distorts competition when such ownership extends to two players on opposing teams.[7]
In the Galatasaray case, the CAS panel upheld the validity of FIFA's Financial Fair Play rules, which insist that clubs must operate at break-even in the transfer market.[8]
These three cases concerned restrictions on economic freedom and thus impinge on principles of competition law, but they all recognise that such restrictions are necessary in the interests of fair competition itself – a key component of the ubiquitous lex ludica (general rules of sport), which is a defining feature of sports law, first articulated in the ENIC case.
If there are to be disciplinary actions, backed by sanctions, for rule violations, the rules themselves must be fair. In the Quigley case, which concerned doping, the CAS panel stated: “The fight against doping is difficult and may require strict rules. But rule-makers and those who apply them must start by being strict with themselves,” emphasizing the need for predictability, legality, constitutionality, and clarity.[9]
I would add that disciplinary action for violations of the rules should be administered fairly, with hearings conducted by individuals who are not only factually but also demonstrably independent and impartial.
So my message to you, whether you work in the field of sports law as academics, consultants, lawyers, arbitrators or administrators, is that you must strive to ensure that sports law, both in its components and in its implementation, is fair in the interests of those who practice sport and those who support it, because if participants or spectators do not know that sport is clean, in the end there will be no sport, but only a circus.
In the 1919 Black Sox scandal, sometimes called the sports scandal of the century, the famous American baseball player “Shoeless Joe” Jackson was found guilty of match-fixing. The distraught fan, who refused to believe that his hero had not only a golden shoulder but also bare feet of clay, exclaimed the unforgettable and moving words: “Tell me it ain’t so, Joe, tell me it ain’t so.”
Ethical sports law should strive to ensure, as far as possible, that this never happens.
About SLAM
SLAM is a world-class competition aimed at fostering a deeper understanding of the values and rules of international sports arbitration, the primary dispute resolution mechanism in the sector. The SLAM final rounds are held at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland.
SLAM provides students from all over the world with the opportunity to:
Develop and demonstrate your legal and advocacy skills before the world's leading arbitrators and practitioners both virtually and in person;
Gain real-world experience in international sports arbitration under leading procedural rules;
Receive training in pleading writing and advocacy skills from some of the leading lawyers and arbitrators in global sports.
[1] Opinion of Advocate General Chapeta, C-600/23, 16 January 2025.
[2] Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (case title not given).
[3] CAS case: Pistorius v. IAAF.
[4] World Athletics Regulations, announced in 2025.
[5] Judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (case title not given).
[6] CAS case: ENIC.
[7] CAS case: FC Seraing.
[8] CAS case: Galatasaray.
[9] CAS case: Quigley